Home Is Where the Cash Is

Most women will say that being a homemaker is a rewarding job, even though they don’t earn any money from it. Campaign finance reports, however, make the important work look surprisingly lucrative. Women who apparently don’t earn an income (not including retirees) have contributed $90.6 million to federal politicians, parties and committees this election cycle-but view their stay-at-home status differently depending on their party.

By the end of April, women who identified themselves specifically as homemakers, housewives and similar terms on campaign finance reports had given 55 percent of their total $76.6 million in federal contributions to Republicans, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Female contributors who listed occupations such as community volunteer, civic activist and philanthropist-and other non-income-earning jobs-gave nearly all of their $14 million in contributions to Democrats.

“You may have some women there who are more affluent, who are choosing not to describe themselves as full-time homemakers but to describe the work they do in the community. That probably suggests a more progressive attitude to begin with,” said Susan Carroll, senior scholar for the Center for American Women & Politics at Rutgers University. “It’s not just the work they’re doing, but the fact that they choose to describe themselves that way in the first place that suggests they have a more progressive orientation.”

The 13,080 women who identified themselves as civic activists, community volunteers and philanthropists gave 95 percent of their total contributions to Democrats. The presidential candidates collected $12.2 million of the $14 million from these women. Although New York resident Judy Gluckstern has identified herself as a homemaker on campaign finance forms, more recently she has started to fill in the blank with “volunteer” or “philanthropist.” Gluckstern, who has given a total of nearly $18,000 in contributions this election cycle (all to Democrats and $2,300 to Barack Obama) sits on the board of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), various arts organizations and groups focused on international issues. Housewife “is such a terrible term,” she said. “I don’t earn a paycheck, but I work very hard.”

Although the nearly 34,900 self-identified homemakers and housewives favored Republicans overall, they gave more money to Hillary Clinton–who barely lost the Democratic nomination last week-than any other candidate. The presidential candidates collected $30.9 million of the total $76.6 million in federal contributions coming from self-identified homemakers and housewives, with Clinton drawing $5.2 million of that. Texas resident Audre Rapoport gave the maximum $4,600 to Clinton and $2,300 to Obama and identified herself as a homemaker. Rapoport said her choices had nothing to do with race or gender and everything to do with the direction of the country.

“I wasn’t really pleased with the last administration,” she said, adding that Democrats seem more interested in providing Americans with health care and livable wages, rather than tax cuts for the highest income earners. “Too few have too little,” she said, “and too many have too much.”

It also probably didn’t hurt that both she and her husband, Bernard, know both Clinton and Obama. All of the $104,600 that Rapoport has given this year to federal candidates and parties has gone to Democrats. And although she identified herself as a homemaker, Rapoport and her husband operate a foundation that focuses on education and the underprivileged, she said.

Capital Eye contacted a handful of self-identified homemakers who have given to Republican John McCain‘s presidential campaign, but they either didn’t return the call or declined to comment, saying they don’t like talking about politics or they’re not “keen on this sort of thing,” as one put it.

Regardless of party preference, those who list homemaker and other similar terms often donate along with their husbands, especially when the wage-earning spouse has maxed out to the candidate and can legally give no more. This raises the question of whether the contribution was the woman’s decision or just a way for her husband to get around contribution limits. Faith Winter, the national field director for the White House Project, which trains women to run for office, says husbands aren’t controlling contributions nearly as much now, however, especially as the number of women in politics increases.

“If you ask women what it feels like to give money, they say they feel like they’re part of a team-empowered, hopeful,” Winter said. “The number of women donating to campaigns is increasing, and oftentimes they give to different candidates [than their husbands] based on different issues and causes.”

In the case of the Glucksterns of New York, Judy has given $6,350 more than her husband, Steven, though the two often give to the same candidates. She said they sometimes arrive at the same conclusion at different times in different ways. Steven was on board with Obama right from the start, his wife said. Later, she decided to back him when she saw the war chest Clinton had amassed going into the race. And although Gluckstern has tremendous respect for Clinton as a woman, using the right to vote for someone else was a feminist act, she said.

“I’m in my mid-50s and I went to a women’s college. I get the feminist thing, and certainly one of the parts of feminism is the right not to blindly choose this person just because she’s a woman,” Gluckstern said. “That’s part of what feminism is about.”

Women who identified themselves in campaign finance records as civic volunteers and community activists have given at least $6.7 million to Obama through April–more money than they gave to any other candidate. Clinton has received $4.7 million from this group. (In some cases, it’s suspected that campaigns provide occupation info when the donor hasn’t listed it.)

“Obama’s mobilized people who haven’t been mobilized before, and he’s done it in a completely different way. He’s changed the way people approach campaigns,” Carroll, the women-and-politics scholar, said. “I think to the extent that the fundraising efforts are grassroots, you’ll probably see more women able to participate.”

Obama has also been the favorite among retired women (they have given him $6.9 million), while Clinton has benefited from the financial backing of the largest and most affluent group of female contributors-the professionals. With 68 percent of their $218.8 million going to Democrats, women who reported having paid jobs gave $40.8 million from their paychecks to the New York senator, perhaps seeing a bit of themselves in the lawyer turned politician. Others say they were won over by Clinton’s politics.

“[My support] has to do with the fact I think she’s the most qualified person to be president,” said Washington, D.C., lawyer Heather Podesta, whose brother-in-law John was Bill Clinton’s chief of staff in the White House. “The fact that she is a woman is part of the package, but for me it’s not the deciding factor.” Podesta had given Democrats at least $92,000 through the end of April, including $4,600 to Clinton’s campaign.

Among professional women, lawyers and others working in the legal field have given more money to federal candidates, parties and committees than women in any other field ($20.5 million, 84 percent of which went to Democrats) and they favored Clinton. The legal industry is also the top giver overall, including contributions from men. Women working in real estate and education were also generous donors. Retirees have given at least $54.6 million, 60 percent to Democrats.

And, of course, there’s one demanding job that women from all walks of life can identify with–motherhood. Nearly 480 women who’ve contributed in the 2008 election cycle listed “mom” as their occupation. These women gave a total of $440,700, nearly 80 percent to Democrats. Obama collected the most from these politically active mothers at $187,800.

There’s no doubt that women of all backgrounds are playing a greater role in politics at every level. For the first time, a woman nearly made it onto the presidential ballot, shattering fundraising records along the way. A woman now leads the House of Representatives, and nearly 90 other women serve in Congress. In the presidential race, both Clinton and Obama have relied heavily on contributions from women; nearly half of her contributions exceeding $200 came from women (a total of $57.2 million) and, for him, about 42 percent were from women (a total of $54 million). Interestingly, 4,500 more women (including only those who contributed more than $200) gave to Obama than to Clinton, the Center has found.

“We’re always trying to push women beyond voting, to lead a political life. One of the ways to do that is to get women to donate to a campaign,” the White House Project’s Winter said. “When you contribute, you feel like you’re more invested in that candidate. The highs are higher, and the lows are lower.”

Except for the Revolving Door section, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License by OpenSecrets.org. To request permission for commercial use, please contact us.